In an era marked by the transition from unipolarity to multipolarity, the imperative of adaptation has never been more pronounced. The world order, dominated for the last 30 years by a single superpower, now witnesses the emergence of multiple centres of influence and power. This shifting landscape necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of strategies and approaches across political, economic, and social domains and demands a nuanced understanding of geopolitical shifts and their implications. As the dynamics of power distribution evolve, so too must our responses to the challenges and opportunities they present.
This article explores the intricacies of adaptation in a changing world order. From the strategic recalibration of statecraft to the reconfiguration of economic alliances, we delve into the multifaceted dimensions of navigating this new geopolitical terrain. We navigate the complexities of a world in flux, where the ability to adapt is not merely advantageous but essential for thriving in an era of multipolarity.
The Flaws of Hegemonic Systems
Hegemonic systems, as history shows are temporary in nature and invite internal and external opposition which over time grows stronger and ever more multi-faceted. That was the case with the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British-Indian Empire. The U.S. is now at a similar point. The superficial opposition is China and Russia, but the true conflict goes far deeper, since similar to the Spanish Empire, and in contrast to the British Empire, the U.S. Empire is not only a military and trade empire, but also a messianic-ideological empire, with its messianic ideology increasingly turning more extreme and leading to ever more opposition domestically and globally. And in contrast to historic empires before, the U.S. is the first technological empire – and it is losing its edge in technology, trade and military.
These increasing systemic breakdowns explain why the U.S. seeks to maintain conflict between Europe and Russia, or between the Pacific Rim countries and Mainland China. The growing global resistance to U.S. influence presents a significant challenge, not merely through direct opposition, but by destabilizing the unipolar power structure. This erosion threatens the hegemon’s ability to impose its will globally without repercussions, undermining the longstanding advantages that such dominance confers. Additionally, it endangers the privileges enjoyed by the social elites within Anglo-Saxon society, who benefit from their nation’s dominant status. Ultimately, this situation revolves around economic interests and social status.
Economic and Political Connectivity as a Stabilizing Force
A hegemonic system struggles to adapt to new power distributions, leading to zero-sum conflicts where peace is often equated with defeating opponents. This intrinsic contradiction stems from the system’s inability to accommodate emerging centres of power, fostering more conflict than diplomacy. The liberal hegemonic order, which expanded NATO rather than establishing a multipolar international system based on sovereign equality, exacerbated this issue. The unipolar order was intended to prevent great power competition and promote liberal values like human rights and democracy. However, countries naturally began to balance against this hegemony, seeking a multipolar system. Allies and adversaries alike, including India, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, prefer diversification over subordination to a single hegemon. The liberal hegemonic system with Western dominance, transformed liberalism into an instrument of power politics where „rules-based international order“ granted sovereignty to the West but not to others, leading to widespread opposition. Nations reject a system where the West can interfere, invade, or manipulate under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights.
For the other side, the “opposition” however, recognizing the necessity of unifying the economic, political and military elements is vital. Thus connecting the economic and trade aspect (mostly China), with the resources areas (mostly Russia, the Persian Gulf area, and Central Africa), and the military power (mostly Russia, increasingly China) is key for what is usually called “BRICS (+)”. What is still missing is the political and ideological aspect. While it is in the interest of the U.S. Empire to foment chaos and conflict in the aforementioned regions, the BRICS nations prioritize the promotion of peace and cooperation. A prime example of this is China’s mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which facilitated their inclusion in BRICS and enhanced regional stability. This illustrates how economic incentives can effectively foster peace beyond traditional alliance frameworks.
The Failure of Sanctions and the Rise of Multipolarity
Focusing on sanctions, historically used by the US to penalize states pursuing independent policies, we see diminishing effectiveness. The unprecedented scale of sanctions targeting Russia, including civilian populations, industries, individuals, and sovereign assets, contrasts with the resilience shown by the Russian economy. The West’s sanctions on Russia, exceeding 16.500, have not produced the intended results. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that Russia is forecasted to grow faster than all advanced economies (up to 5.6% in 2024), including the US, while the economic outlook for Europe, especially the UK and Germany, has drastically worsened. This failure, along with symptoms such as France’s involuntary departure from Francophone Africa and the ever-growing societal rifts within the United States, suggests that the West’s economic, technological, political, financial, and military power—as well as its ability to shape and enforce its narrative globally—is rapidly waning.
Propaganda has often mischaracterized Russia’s economic capabilities. However, in my view, Russia has effectively diversified its economic partnerships. The European dependence on Russian energy exposed their industries to vulnerabilities, and severing this relationship has had a more detrimental impact on European economies than on Russia’s. This outcome aligns with certain interests of the US. However, history shows that an empire undermining its peripheral allies, dependencies, and strategic partners to benefit its core can lead to significant challenges and hasten its decline.
Strategic Adaptation to a Multipolar World
The shift began when NATO expanded, ignoring Russian interests, leading Russia to seek integration with the West through different hopeful paths (especially towards the EU), which ultimately failed. The final turning point was the 2014 Ukraine crisis, when Western powers rejected the idea of Ukraine as a bridge between East and West, leading Russia to abandon its hopes for integration with Europe and focus on diversifying its economic connections, which means mostly orienting them away from Europe and towards Asia and in the longer run Africa.
Russia’s strategy to sanction-proof its economy involved reducing dependence on Western technology, developing new transportation corridors, seeking new customers for its natural resources exports, and creating alternative financial systems. This approach aimed at avoiding excessive dependence on any single power centre, reflecting a pragmatic adaptation to a multipolar world.
Global Strategic Partnerships and Economic Diversification
Countries recognize that economic, financial, and security related over-dependence on a single partner – especially when that “partner” is as ideologically messianic and has delusions of omnipotence (the “Indispensable Nation”) – as is the case with the U.S. – is averse to national security and national interests, prompting them to reduce reliance on that increasingly seen as hostile power. Professor John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) argues that U.S. foreign policy missteps pushed Russia, China and others closer together. A more balanced relationship with Russia might have prevented this strong Sino-Russian bond, which both countries now value highly. Without U.S. messianic excesses BRICS would most likely never have happened.
Russia and China view their cooperation in global affairs as one of the main stabilizing factors on the international stage. The strategic partnership between Russia and China has solidified over the past decade, contrary to earlier predictions of its fragility. This partnership is now a cornerstone of the emerging multipolar world. To develop effective policies, the West must realistically assess its actions and their impact on Russia’s strategic decisions.
Looking further afield, India also recognizes the importance of maintaining diversified economic relations with Russia to avoid excessive Chinese influence, as the same time balancing relations with the U.S. which important for the Indian diaspora. India has collaborated with Russia on the 7.200 km long North-South Transportation Corridor, a multi-modal network of railways, roads and sea routes moving freight between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia and Europe. India participated in Arctic development to avoid Russia becoming solely connected to China. Meanwhile, India continues to refrain from openly aligning with anti-U.S. forces, potentially making it the weakest link in the current BRICS constellation.
By now the pre-positioning for a possible Great Blocks conflict extends all around the world, from Central Asia to South-East Asia, and Africa. The U.S. foreign policy is dominated by binary “with us” or “against us”, which is destabilizing because it divides international systems into adversaries and allies. The U.S. often pursues policies that inadvertently strengthen Chinese influence. Efforts to sabotage initiatives like the Eurasian Economic Union push Central Asia further under Chinese dominance. Pressuring India to cut ties with Iran, or Pakistan with Iran, and threatening further sanctions drives Iran ever closer to China and Russia. These policies are self-defeating, inadvertently promoting the new multipolarity While submission to U.S. policy was nearly unavoidable for most countries twenty years ago, today there are alternatives. The decades of accumulated bitterness towards the U.S. are increasingly coming to the surface.
By not adapting to the multipolar world and continuing to pursue strategies that aim to restore unipolar dominance, the U.S. risks isolating itself and weakening its global standing. When one effectively sanctions the entire world, it is not the world that ultimately suffers, but oneself. Embracing current geopolitical realities and fostering cooperative relationships with emerging powers would in principle have better served American interests in maintaining influence and stability in the international arena.
At this point, it is essential to differentiate between an alliance and an economic partnership. Alliances typically involve countries working together against a common adversary. Therefore, when Iran and Saudi Arabia are part of the same group, there’s no need to worry about an anti-American agenda, as their common ground is limited. Instead, their focus is on economic connectivity. This is why China and Russia are eager to engage with both nations—they seek closer integration with Saudi Arabia and Iran without alienating other partners. Forming alliances or blocs isn’t in their best interest, similar to how a military alliance between Russia and China would alienate India and Japan. As Lord Palmerston said – “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. Opportunism and strategically “sitting on the fence” are not unusual as long as it is not clear whether the established old Empire or the “young upstarts” will win. Consequently, Russia also avoids a military alliance with North Korea for the same reasons, to be able to connect also with South Korea.
The Need for Revised Sanctions Policies
Policies that endorse economic and financial weaponization, decoupling, and asset seizure are short-sighted and likely to backfire. The European Union’s recent decision to use profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, especially for purchasing weapons, is unprecedented, illegitimate, and harmful to international trust. Equally counterproductive are the U.S. „third-party sanctions,“ which poison and militarize international relations. These measures tend to escalate regional conflicts into global ones and compel neutral parties to confront dilemmas they had hoped to avoid. At the same time they accelerate global trends toward multipolarity and economic independence from the West, while diminishing overall trust and cooperation within the international system.
Seizing assets not only erodes confidence in the Western financial system but also sets a dangerous precedent. If other countries adopt similar measures, it could lead to a global breakdown of economic relations and reciprocal asset seizures. For example, Russia could retaliate by targeting European assets within its borders, significantly harming European economies.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Adaptation
Given these global political and economic developments and unprecedented upheavals, it is crucial for European and American leaderships to urgently revise their sanctions policies. The sanctions have not achieved the desired results and have proven to be detrimental to the West in every respect.
The neo-liberal hegemony model is waning, as the traditional and proven balance of power is being reestablished by influential nations such as China and Russia. The EU might also contribute to this restoration, provided it transitions from its current alignment with U.S. policies to developing its own independent interests and strategies.
The decaying Empire and the new, mostly non-Western nations are competing ideologically), politically, economically, financially, and militarily, leading to chaotic times as the old order fades and a new one has yet to be established. Yet, many leaders in the West still believe in the superiority of the neo-liberal hegemonic system. However, its rapid decline over the past 15 years (since the global financial crises of 2008/09) indicates its increasing instability.
It is therefore essential to develop effective and realistic policies in the West, understanding and addressing the reasons behind Russia’s strategic economic diversification and the broader implications for global multipolarity. Embracing these realities and fostering cooperative relationships with emerging powers would better serve the interests of maintaining influence and stability in the international arena and would decrease the currently ever-increasing probability of a – most likely nuclear – war.
